Phi August 13, 2012 August 13, 2012 Both of these theories are just that: Legitimate theories. I can personally see how either one of them could be correct. I also don't see the problem with people citing Freud, since he was right with a lot of his theories. I'm not sure if he ever said that only one mind can exist in a single brain though.
Asgardian August 13, 2012 August 13, 2012 Both of these theories are just that: Legitimate theories. I can personally see how either one of them could be correct. I also don't see the problem with people citing Freud, since he was right with a lot of his theories. I'm not sure if he ever said that only one mind can exist in a single brain though. Exactly, and as I said do we have a black white (for everyone thinking this fallacy has something to do with moral, it does not only) fallacy here, neither has to be correct. Both can be right to a degree, or be something else entirely. "Sorry for that, my communication implants are idiologically biased."
mouse_ August 13, 2012 August 13, 2012 Even if Freud was completely correct (ha), his theories have very little to do with where consciousness comes from and whether or not it is really self-aware. I have a problem when people say: tulpa would be an unconscious process, because Freud. I only see one legitimate theory, because I've yet to see anyone even try to back the other one up. Black/white fallacy? Remind me again how something can be partially self-aware. That's a pretty clear cut dichotomy.
Phi August 13, 2012 August 13, 2012 Tulpa could be created with help from the unconscious because Freud. The unconscious is just another term for the subconscious, and we all must know about my theory with the anima and animus by now, right? Albeit anima and animus is actually Jung, that's where I believe deviation comes from. The unconscious mind. Anyway, a lot of Freud's theories are correct, he just blew them out of proportion with sex. Even with the sex, some of them are still arguably correct. Freud included so much about sex in his theories. One time, he gave a lecture at a university, and he was teaching about symbols in dreams and their interpretation. One of the students suddenly raised his hand and asked, "Sir, then why do you always bite on a cigar?" Freud took the cigar out of his mouth, looked at it, took a really long pause, and said, "Young man, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Asgardian August 13, 2012 August 13, 2012 Even if Freud was completely correct (ha), his theories have very little to do with where consciousness comes from and whether or not it is really self-aware. I have a problem when people say: tulpa would be an unconscious process, because Freud. I only see one legitimate theory, because I've yet to see anyone even try to back the other one up. Black/white fallacy? Remind me again how something can be partially self-aware. That's a pretty clear cut dichotomy. *facepalm* Not partially self aware, partially unconscious. I personally think the term unconscious is not clear enough at this point, anyways, as a pretty huge chunk of the brain is technically unconscious in a sense. The fact that your brain stem is not the seat of profound thought does not make it less functioning, par exemple (and a part of ones proto-self is arguebly located there). There is a difference between Sub- and Unconscious btw, even after Freuds definition. But enough of that. Now, even if your tulpa is "created by the subconscious" (as in, in order to make the whole definition a bit clearer, emulated for you by the sub-C and technically not self-aware or [*gasp*] not "alive"), it would make no difference for you, anyways. From a philosophical point of view, you can't even prove, if any other human is not just simulated this way, getting input and giving output without thought process. I would google the chinese room argument for that. Oh, and if freud was right, then tulpae would propably be rooted into the Id, but that does not technically mean they have no connection to the ego. They certainly are perceived by the consciousness, so either responding directly to the ego, or through the Id. "Sorry for that, my communication implants are idiologically biased."
Virgil August 13, 2012 August 13, 2012 Black/white fallacy? Remind me again how something can be partially self-aware. That's a pretty clear cut dichotomy. Self-awareness can be a dichotomous property if you define it as, for example, passing the mirror test. But then again, self-awareness is a very complex and abstract concept, which is not even very well definable at the moment. It seems to me like one of those concepts that'll be superseded when our understanding of the human mind has sufficiently improved. Here's something to think about. In relation to biological classification, humans seem to be the most conscious, orangutans less, cats less still, ..., amoebas not. Clearly, somewhere on the continuum from advanced to primitive organisms, consciousness disappears. Is this change abrupt or gradual? Consciousness evolved; homo sapiens is more conscious than homo erectus, both of whom are much more conscious than one of their more primitive ancient ancestors, for example the flatworm. If we restrict the quality of consciousness to the modern human only, then we have a developmental scale: A human begins as a mindless unicellular organism, and during development becomes conscious. We can again speculate— is the gaining of consciousness distinctly defined, or is it more fuzzy? Are infants self-aware? http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/05/when-self-emerges-is-that-me-in-mirror.php Then there are all sorts of disorders of consciousness. Even if we further restrict it to healthy adult humans, then a person may be fully conscious when awake, less conscious during hypnagogia, when drowsy, or REM sleep, and unconscious during NREM sleep. By the way what Asgardian probably meant was that the conscious and unconscious minds lack a clear distinction. Bayesian inference
Asgardian August 13, 2012 August 13, 2012 Well, todays science splits self awareness into several different traits, ranging from perceiving your own body as destinct to passing the mirror test, so the whole definition is deviating already. I personally think, that consciousness is a term applying to many animals, the human just has the highest informational entropy in it. It is not like there couldn't be even more intelligent species in theory, who would perceive and deal with more information. Just the same way homo sapiens is more conscious than erectus in Virgils good example. I meant, that all aspects of this can't be seen as clear and hard defined black or white facts, thus you can clearly say this is self awareness, this definitely conscious etc. "Sorry for that, my communication implants are idiologically biased."
mouse_ August 13, 2012 August 13, 2012 Phi: I'm not arguing that tulpae aren't constructed by the unconscious. I believe the unconscious contructs an identity which becomes self-aware when it constantly receives affirmations that one exists -- first, when your parents talk to you as a child; again, if you constantly talk to a tulpa. My argument is that both are self-aware, and neither is just a non-aware subconscious projection. I only started arguing because aviar/fede insinuated that they aren't really sentient. They'll have to prove it first (don't crucify me for proving a negative; I think it's fair to give a sentient-appearing being the benefit of the doubt). Not partially self aware, partially unconscious. I personally think the term unconscious is not clear enough at this point, anyways, as a pretty huge chunk of the brain is technically unconscious in a sense. The fact that your brain stem is not the seat of profound thought does not make it less functioning, par exemple (and a part of ones proto-self is arguebly located there). There is a difference between Sub- and Unconscious btw, even after Freuds definition. But enough of that. Agreed, for the most part. The terminology sucks. Now, even if your tulpa is "created by the subconscious" (as in, in order to make the whole definition a bit clearer, emulated for you by the sub-C and technically not self-aware or [*gasp*] not "alive"), it would make no difference for you, anyways. From a philosophical point of view, you can't even prove, if any other human is not just simulated this way, getting input and giving output without thought process. I would google the chinese room argument for that. Oh, and if freud was right, then tulpae would propably be rooted into the Id, but that does not technically mean they have no connection to the ego. They certainly are perceived by the consciousness, so either responding directly to the ego, or through the Id. Glad you brought this up... like to have someone who knows their stuff and understands my argument. It is unprovable philosophically, unless you accept some conditions. If you accept that all reality (consciousness included) is explained by the physical, you can prove the self-awareness of other people*. It follows from the impossibility of philosophical zombies under physicalism -- self-aware behavior implies self-awareness. If you don't believe in physicalism, though... *Assuming you have an accurate way to detect self-aware behavior -- you can't, but I'm not interested in measurement difficulties. Ironic that tulpae are more plausible in a physical universe :/ Self-awareness can be a dichotomous property if you define it as, for example, passing the mirror test. But then again, self-awareness is a very complex and abstract concept, which is not even very well definable at the moment. It seems to me like one of those concepts that'll be superseded when our understanding of the human mind has sufficiently improved. I don't think a property should be defined by the test for that property. Self-awareness is simply whether you know you exist. You either know, or you don't. I'm not interested in the difficulties in measuring these things (though that may introduce problems later). Here's something to think about. In relation to biological classification, humans seem to be the most conscious, orangutans less, cats less still, ..., amoebas not. Clearly, somewhere on the continuum from advanced to primitive organisms, consciousness disappears. Is this change abrupt or gradual? Consciousness evolved; homo sapiens is more conscious than homo erectus, both of whom are much more conscious than one of their more primitive ancient ancestors, for example the flatworm. If we restrict the quality of consciousness to the modern human only, then we have a developmental scale: A human begins as a mindless unicellular organism, and during development becomes conscious. We can again speculate— is the gaining of consciousness distinctly defined, or is it more fuzzy? Are infants self-aware? See, here's the problem, though. The human's consciousness isn't an inevitability. It is very possible for a human to develop complex thought patterns and be well into adulthood without being self-aware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology) -- evidence that humans weren't self aware until about 3000 years ago (not proven) https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/e59872274575534a85256d2b003a7da9/7c729af3cf5506e885256e5f004fb981?OpenDocument ^Evidence that feral children -- who didn't grow up around language and constant affirmations that they exist -- are not self aware. Just Ctrl-F self-aware This is why I think tulpae are sentient. They are created in the same manner that we are. Through language (or interaction, may not need to be language).
Asgardian August 13, 2012 August 13, 2012 Nice that you bring that up, as I technically agree to the most part. When born, the human brain is for the most part a relatively blank slate, all neurons are there, but only few have connections to others, not to speak of having the thousends each one will have later on (by average). The brain works in ways oddly similar to the race-to-idle principle in our CPU's, basically always trying to reach an ataraxia (balance/peace), that keeps being distracted by outer and inner stimuli. Only input is able to wire the brain up to a point it can properly start to wire itself, so to say. This is the assumed reason for childhood amnesia, and it makes sense, hence the brain is not fully working the way it does later on at this point. After this definition, we are all a bit tulpa. xD This is why I really can imagine tulpae being not all that different from us, as if you give a semi-blank slate enough attention to become individual (there is much room in parts of the subconscious). "Sorry for that, my communication implants are idiologically biased."
mouse_ August 13, 2012 August 13, 2012 we are all a bit tulpa I hope so. Would certainly make me feel better about humanity lol
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.